The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-26
AN INSTRUCTIVE CORRESPONDENCE.

unique incident 1t is a hopeful sign when
the chief executive of a State and
county sheriff engage in an open correspond
ence as to their respective duties and respon-
sibilities touching the enforcement Of the law.
1t is a case in which, as Uncle Toby said,
good deal can be said on both sides, and can
dor compels the admission that both parties
to the correspondence have made some good
points. 1t is Nip and Tuck between them,
with Tuck little ahead. In this case Tuck
is the sheriff. The Governors letter TO the
sheriff showed degree of warmth bordering
on indignation, caused, no doubt, by the re-
cent frequency of white Cap" and other
outrages, and the growing feeling that the
business ought to be stopped. The record
shows that the Governor had warned the
sheriff at Loga nsport when Green was con-
fined there, to take special precautions against
any attempt at lynching, and the sheriff did
SO. Perhaps if the Governor had in like
manner warned the sheriff at Delphi the
lynching might have been prevented, and the
Governor would not have been placed in the
position of locking the stable-door after the
horse was stolen Still, his rebuke to Sheriff
Vangundy is not uncalled for. All the cir
cumstances of the case, the previous removal
Of the prisoner, the public excitement ETC.,
were such as should have put the sheriff on
his guard and induced him to take extra pre-
cautions.
That he did not do so and was unprepared
to offer any resistance to the operations of the
mob was an oversight on his part that a sensi-
tive official ought TO regret, though possibly
he might not have been able to prevent the
lynching. Green's life was hardly worth
fighting for, but the law is. and one or two
brave men with revolvers might have driven
the mob off, or held them at bay until they
would have reconsidered their purpose. Per-
haps if the sheriff had received timely notice
of the attempt he would have been prepared
to offer some resistance; his mistake was in
not being prepared. So there was this much
ground for the Governors rebuke.
The sheriffs reply embraces defense of
himself and a counter rebuke to the Governor.
For the first he argues that there were no
premonitory symptoms of mob violence. nor
any surface indications TO justify him in tax
ing extra precautions He says he was not in
possession of any facts authorizing extra pre-
cautionary measures, and then TO the Govern
or: elf you were in possession of such facts
why did not you communicate them to MET
It was your duty to do so. The same obliga-
ton rests upon you upon me; nay, more"
That is neat and effective retort. still
stronger point is made when the sheriff in
forms the Governor that the mob came from
a neighborhood formerly infested by notori-
GUS gang of robbers and thieves, that the
leader of the gang, after having been con-
victed and sent to the penitentiary, was par
doned by Governor Gray, and that after his
pardon he returned to the neighborhood re-
organized the gang, and resumed his depreda-
lions until the citizens had to form vigl-
lance committee in self-defense. Then the
| sheriff says to the Governor:
| II am plain man, and as you see fit to
! give me lecture concerning my duties per-
| haps it would not be inappropriate for me to
| ask you, with due respect, II you consider
! your own official skirts entirely clear. Courts
torious criminals, giving security to the hum
| BILE fresides of the land, and all this labor and
| expense go for naught when the Governor OF
| this noble State, with one stroke of the same
! pen with which he presumes to lecture others
concerning their duties, undoes the good
| work"
This is knock-down argumentum ad
hominem and about as effective a presenta-
ton of the abuse of the pardoning power as
could be conceived. The Governor does not
deny the facts, but says the pardon referred
to was issued nearly eight years ago, when he
was serving out Governor Williams's unex-
PRED term, and was paratively inexpe-
rienced in the use of the pardoning power !;
and if he made a mistake then he cannot see
how it helps the sheriff's case. In one sense
it does not, vet neither does it break the force
of his counter rebuke. The fact is, the abuse
of the pardoning power is one of the growing
evils of the times; one of the weak points in
our steadily weakening system of justice
We are not prepared to say that Governor
Gray has sinned above other Governors in
this regard, though the particular case cited
by Sheriff Vangundy affords striking illus
tration Of the evils of the abuse; but the evil
is general and calls for reform. The abuse
and lax use of the pardoning power is one Of
the means by which justice is often defeated
and society thwarted in its efforts to punish
crime Governor Gray and Sheriff Vangundy
have both learn ed something from this Incl
dent, and the correspondence is instructive
for other Governors and sheriffs as well.
THE following editorial from the Evansville